December 2008
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NESS W R A E T D C L I H WILDERNESS W • • K E D WATCHER E IL P W IN S G S WILDERNE The Quarterly Newsletter of Wilderness Watch Volume 19 • Number 2 • December 2008 Victory on the Tongass! ilderness Watch’s four-year battle to stop an unprecedented, helicopter-intensive aerial inva- W sion of 19 national forest Wildernesses in Alaska ended successfully when the regional forester for Alaska, Denny Bschor, decided against allowing the Forest Inventory and Analy- sis (FIA) program to proceed. The decision marked a 180-degree reversal from Bschor’s 2005 approval of the precedent-setting survey. The FIA program is a nationwide vegetation survey con- ducted through the Forest Service’s research branch. It has its origin in a 1930’s law that instructed the Department of Agri- culture to periodically inventory the nation’s timber supply, but has broadened to include monitoring changes in vegetation over long periods of time. As part of the survey in southeast Alaska, FIA proposed establishing 646 forested survey plots in national forest Wilder- nesses. Regional Forest Service personnel added another 267 Tongass National Forest Wilderness, AK. non-forested plots to the survey. Based on an internal review, the Forest Service determined that helicopter access would be In February 2005, the regional forester authorized the proj- required to survey 547 of the 913 plots. ect to go forward without benefit of an environmental analysis, meaningful public review, or opportunity for the public to ap- peal the decision. The decision meant that over the next decade the wildest, most remote national forest Wildernesses in Alaska would suffer more than 1,000 helicopter landings, dozens of hours of low-level hovering, and the installation of more than 3,600 permanent structures (“monuments”) to document the In This Issue... individual plots! Because the FIA program is predicated on the Rescuing Wilderness. Page 4 assumption that the sites will be revisited on a recurring basis, the decision essentially condemned these Wildernesses to intensive Protecting the Upper Chattooga. helicopter use in perpetuity. Page 5 Wilderness Watch immediately launched efforts to overturn Horse-Packer Hell: Super-sizing the wilderness the regional forester’s decision. We rallied allies in southeast experience. By Howie Wolke Page 6 Alaska, including the Sitka Conservation Society, which remained a stalwart ally for the duration. We recruited attorneys from New Rules for Wilderness. Page 8 Faegre & Benson and Earthjustice, putting the Forest Service on notice that, if necessary, we were willing to challenge the Court Rules for Development in Kofa Wilderness. project in court. We provided lengthy letters and analysis to the Page 9 And Much More! — Continued on page 3 — insights S ES RN S W E A From the President T D C L I H W — By Kevin Proescholdt • • K E D E IL P s the Wilderness Watch Board of Directors and W IN S staff look ahead to a potentially uncharted fu- G S WILDERNE A ture, we’ve begun the process of trying to place Wilderness Watch in the best position possible to be the best The Wilderness Watcher advocate possible for the protection and stewardship of our is the quarterly newsletter of great National Wilderness Preservation System. Wilderness Watch, a non-profit organization advocating the protection and responsible Our current planning has taken the form of Wilderness stewardship of the nation’s Watch’s Strategic Plan. Now, I know for some people the designated Wildernesses and thought of working on a strategic plan is a real snoozer. Wild & Scenic Rivers. Though it may not be as exciting as winning a wilderness case in federal court, a strategic plan is nonethelessES vitallyS impor- Board of Directors tant if Wilderness Watch hopesN to succeed in the future. W Kevin Proescholdt, MN President R A Jon Dettmann, MN Vice-Pres. The organizationE had developed a strategic plan a number of years ago. While that Francis Mauer, AK Secretary plan was good for its time, it was out-dated and needed significant revisionsT and updating. Bill Worf, MT Treasurer Stewart Brandborg, MT That’s the processD that our board and staff embarked upon, and we successfullyC completed it at our board of directors meeting in October. Joe Fontaine, CA L Louise Lasley, WY I H Gary Macfarlane, ID It may be easy, particularly this year, to get caught up in the excitement of the elections, Bob Oset, MT and to try to guess the outcomes of this transition time. How will the Obama Administra- tion deal withW Wilderness? Who will serve in key posts in the incoming Administration? Counselor Hope springs eternal, and our hopes for Wilderness remain vibrant and alive during the Stewart Udall excitement• of this post-election time. But Wilderness Watch needs a strong Strategic Plan that will guide us in our mission regardless of who ends up sitting in the White H•ouse, or K Executive Director which political party controls Congress. We need to look forward, not to just the next four George Nickas years, butE to the next forty years and more. That’s why we’ve spent the time andD effort to revise our Strategic Plan. We think it will be well worth the effort. Membership & Development E IL Jeff Smith Of course,P the board and staff of Wilderness Watch cannot succeedW in achieving our mission alone. You,I our members, have been the backbone of the organization for the nearly Advisory Council 20 years of WildernessN Watch’s existence. You have generously supportedS us financially. Magalen Bryant, Dr. Derek Craighead, You have renewed yourG memberships at an amazingly high rate.S You have responded to E Bill Cunningham, our action alerts and writtenW eloquent and heart-felt lettersN to agency officials and policy ILDER Dr. M. Rupert Cutler, makers. You have alerted us to both problems and successes in your local Wildernesses. Michael Frome, You have made Wilderness Watch the terrific organization it is today. Dr. Roderick Nash, Howie Wolke. Because we recognize the importance of our members, we wanted to highlight one of our wonderful members and strongest supporters in this issue of our newsletter. On page 10, you’ll find an article about my friend, Bob Binger of Minnesota. Bob has been a long- time visitor of both designated Wildernesses and undesignated wildernesses, a passionate Wilderness Watch P.O. Box 9175 supporter of wilderness protection, and a long-time and extremely generous supporter of Missoula, MT 59807 Wilderness Watch. I hope you enjoy getting to know Bob, an example to us all. S Phone: (406) 542-2048 Fax: (406) 542-7714 www.wildernesswatch.org [email protected] 2 Wilderness Watcher, December 2008 Victory on the Tongass, continued from page 1 regional forester explaining why the project failed to meet the requirements of the law and would have negative consequences for Wilderness far beyond Alaska. When the regional forester rejected our requests, we wrote to then Chief of the Forest Service, Dale Bosworth, urging him to intervene. Bosworth did nothing; in fact, a subsequent review of the administrative record showed that his Washington Office staff was working diligently to grease the administrative and political skids for helicopter use. “This effort to protect wilderness on the Tongass illustrates the long, arduous, and mostly behind-the- scenes battles that Wilderness Watch often engages to protect Wilderness.” Two weeks later, in an unrelated case, a federal judge in Alaska ruled that it was unlawful for the Forest Service to ap- prove projects without providing for public comment and an opportunity for appeal. With that information in hand we again urged the regional forester to suspend the inventory until a law- ful analysis and public comment process was implemented. A short time later in a meeting with Wilderness Watch executive director, George Nickas, the regional forester announced that Final EIS map showing extent of proposed survey plots in the million-acre helicopter use would be halted until a proper environmental Kootznoowoo Wilderness, one of 19 Wildernesses targeted for the FIA survey. review was done. In May 2006 the Forest Service released a draft environmental licopters, especially in the rugged terrain and unpredictable impact statement. The proposed action was unchanged, allowing weather of southeast Alaska, was inherently risky and did not helicopters to access 540 of the 913 plots. Only those plots that justify the information gained. Our concerns were amplified by could be reached and surveyed on a day-hike would be accessed the comments of many Wilderness Watch members in Alaska on foot, all others would be accessed by air. Using helicopters and elsewhere who objected to the project. In addition, a re- rather than traveling on foot was justified based on safety; the view of the record shows that wilderness rangers were raising country is rugged, remote, and extended stays of more than one objections, and wilderness staff in the regional office were now day would expose field crews to possible bear encounters and raising concerns. bad weather (in other words, field crews ran the risk of having a wilderness experience!). By the time the Final EIS was issued for public review in the fall of 2007, the agency was taking public concerns to heart and Wilderness Watch objected to the proposal for a number of offered a new preferred alternative. Helicopter landings were reasons. We pointed out that, while research and scientific study out; all 913 plots would be accessed on foot. This was a huge step are important values of the National Wilderness Preservation forward, but there were still two significant problems with plan. System, the research must be done in a wilderness-compatible One was that approximately 490 low-level helicopter reconnais- way.